Page 95 - JOURNAL OF LIBRARY SCIENCE IN CHINA 2018 Vol. 43

YAN Hui / Structural origins of digital poverty in rural China 095

Table 1. Selected villages in the field sites
Provinces Villages Field time In-depth Focus group Questionnaire
16 villagers in
Dongzhi, Anhui Mifen, Jinshan Aug. 5th to 14th, 2012 48 53
two groups
Banan, Chongqing Yipin Aug. 22nd to 28th, 2013. 22 10 in two 81
Chakouyi, Hongda,
Tianzhu, Gansu Jan. 4th to 12th 49 54 in five 84
Shimen, Datang, Kela
Guiyang, Anshun, Waijiao, Dingshu Jan. 22nd to Feb.3rd, 2013; 24 16 in three 82
Guizhou Jul. 23rd to 27th, 2016.
Longshan, Hunan Liye May 12th to 27th, 2013. 34 15 experiments 67

Jinghai, Tianjin Tuhe, Huifengxi Jul. 9th to 13th, 2012 37 12 in two 85
In total 65 days 214 123 452

2 Definition and scope of digital poverty

Although the literature on digital inequality (Yan, 2011) appeared nearly 20 years ago, the first
public publication on digital poverty (Galperin & Mariscal, 2004) was issued in 2006, and defined
as insufficient status on access to information and communication technologies by people and
organizations, and factors preventing their inventive usage of ICTs.
In an economics research paper on digital poverty in Latin America (Caceres, 2007), the author
imported the concepts of demands and economic poverty into the question of applications of ICTs
in social context, and emphasized the commercial attribute of ICTs and furthermore data resources
stored in them and consumed by users. Digital poverty was defined as shortage of ICTs by certain
groups of people, regardless whether or not they are in economic poverty. The digital poor people
were classified into 4 groups. The first type was those even without the lowest ability in using of
ICT, no supply of ICT services, and low income which was recognized as economic poverty. The
second type of digital poverty was described as low income and economic poverty, no supply ICT
services, but with the lowest ICT abilities. The third type was those with low income and economic
poverty, lowest ICT abilities, but with no demands for ICTs. The final type was defined as modest
income and no economic poverty, but no ability in using ICT and no obvious demands, which can
be found the wrong side of intergenerational gap. This research selected economic, ICT service
supply, demands of ICT service needs, and ICT ability as standards to measure and classify the
digital poverty.
Another doctoral dissertation in sociology about digital poverty in Latin America (P. Prado,
2009), which also adopted the ability criteria, delineated digital poverty in the scope of deficiency
of infrastructure, no enough digital literacy, insufficient investment in education, and shortage of
history, cultural and social support.
Among the related concepts of digital poverty, information and communication poverty is